Workplace Fairness Dispute Resolution Bill Passed: Employment Discrimination Action
By Ronald JJ Wong
I: Introduction
1. The Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill (the “Bill”) was passed in Parliament on 4 November 2025.
2. The Bill was passed to amend the Workplace Fairness Act 2025 (the “Act”), which was passed in January 2025.
3. The Bill’s key objectives include:[1]
a. Amicable Resolution: Encouraging amicable resolution of disputes through employer-level grievance-handling.
b. Mandatory Mediation: Requiring mandatory mediation before adjudication.
c. Efficiency: Providing accessible and efficient forums for claim determination, particularly for lower-value claims.
d. Preventing Frivolous Claims: Deterring frivolous or vexatious claims through procedural safeguards.
4. At the start, small firms with fewer than 25 employees will be exempted from the law, even though they are expected to adhere to the existing Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices.[2]
II: Executive Summary
5. The Bill creates a statutory cause of action for workplace discrimination and sets out the procedural requirements to commence such claims.
6. The Bill will affect employers, employees and potential hires:
a. The Bill is expected to come into force end of 2027. Thus, employers have time to review their policies to ensure that they comply with both.
b. Employees and potential hires should be aware of the recourse available to them if they face workplace discrimination.
7. As will be canvassed below, the Bill’s procedural strictness raises practical challenges for claimants, particularly in how limitation periods interact with internal handling of such disputes.
8. This article, therefore, not only explains the essential aspects of the Bill but also examines key potential issues for employers and employees to consider regarding addressing and seeking employment discrimination claims.
III: Context – The Act Prior To The Bill
9. Under the Act, employers are prohibited from making adverse employment decisions based on a host of protected characteristics. This prohibition does not apply only during employment, but pre- and post-employment too. This includes a potential hire who attends an interview.[3]
10. Violations under the existing Act are addressed via administrative directions and penalties by the Commissioner.
11. Now with the Bill in place, a statutory cause of action for employment-related discrimination has been introduced, and procedures for seeking recourse are clear.
IV: The New Statutory Cause Of Action
12. The statutory cause of action introduced by the Bill differs significantly from the existing remedies under the Act. The three (3) key differences are as follows:
| Category | The Act | The Bill |
|---|---|---|
| Access to Courts | No direct access to Courts for discrimination claims. | Access to Courts for discrimination claims. |
| Who Controls the Process | The Commissioner directs investigations and determines outcomes. | Employees control whether to initiate civil proceedings. |
| Available Remedies | Penalties imposed on employers (no compensation for employees). | Employees may seek personal remedies. |
13. In summary, the statutory cause of action now allows individuals to directly sue employers for discrimination and seek personal remedies.
Personal Remedies
14. Such remedies depend on when the discriminatory decision occurred:
a. Pre-Employment: If an individual faces discrimination during job applications or interviews, they can claim compensation.
b. During Employment: If discrimination happens during employment, for example, in performance reviews, promotions, demotions, or training, the individual can claim compensation.
c. Post-Employment: If the individual was dismissed, terminated, or retrenched due to discrimination, they can claim compensation and also to be reinstated.
V: The Bill’s Dispute Resolution Process
Existing Processes under the Act
15. The existing Act mandates that employers must implement proper grievance-handling processes to allow workplace fairness concerns to be addressed internally. Employees must also be made aware of such processes.[4]
16. Employees are therefore encouraged to raise disputes through these internal mechanisms before taking formal steps.
17. While this aligns with the Bill’s objective of promoting early and amicable resolution, it may, as discussed later, create difficulties when combined with the Bill’s strict limitation periods.
18. However, if such internal resolution fails, one may look to mediation.
The Bill’s Mediation-First Approach
19. The Bill prescribes a mediation-first approach and encourages employers and employees to resolve disputes internally, without litigation where possible:
a. Step 1: Mediation
If internal grievance-handling does not resolve the dispute, the individual must file a mediation request within the statutory limitation period.
Mediation is mandatory and must be facilitated by an approved mediator.
Only after mediation fails may the mediator decide whether to issue a “claim referral certificate”. Without this, the matter cannot move to adjudication with the Courts.
b. Step 2: Adjudication
If the requisite certificate is issued, adjudication will be done privately. Such disputes can be heard at either the Employment Claims Tribunals (“ECT”) (for claims up to S$250,000) or the High Court (for claims that exceed S$250,000), depending on the amount in dispute.
Legal representation is generally not permitted in ECT proceedings.
High Court proceedings permit legal representation but adopt a judge-led approach, similar to that in ECT proceedings. Also, High Court proceedings are conducted in private and thus confidential, similar to those in the ECT. This means that members of the public and the media may not attend the hearings.
VI: Limitation Period For Filing Mediation Requests
20. The Bill sets out strict statutory timelines for submitting mediation requests.
21. These timelines vary depending on the stage at which the alleged discriminatory act took place:
a. Pre-Employment: A mediation request must be submitted within 1 month of notice of the decision (or deemed notice), or 2 months from the date of the decision if no notice is given.
b. During-Employment: Requests must generally be filed within 6 months, with extensions for certain categories, such as pregnant employees.
c. Post-Employment: A request must be filed within 1 month after the last day of employment, subject to specific exceptions.
22. Compliance with these timelines is essential. Failure to file within the limitation period means the mediation request may not be accepted, and without a valid claim referral certificate, the dispute cannot proceed to adjudication.
VII: A Practical Issue
Time Bar vs Amicable Resolution
23. As set out above:
a. The Act, as it is, encourages handling of such disputes internally; however
b. The Bill introduces compliance with strict and tight timelines.
24. The Bill does not provide for an automatic extension of limitation periods when internal negotiations are ongoing. Therefore, the statutory limitation period does not stop even while parties engage in good-faith discussion.
25. The Commissioner has a discretion to accept late mediation requests where it is reasonable to do so. However, this remains a discretion of the Commissioner.
26. As a result, individuals who attempt to negotiate may inadvertently run out of time to file a mediation request. Once the deadline passes, the Claimant will be barred from bringing a statutory tort claim – even if negotiations were ongoing.
27. This issue is most acute for pre-employment Claimants. A potential hire who follows up, seeks clarification, or attempts to resolve matters may unknowingly exhaust the 1- or 2-month limitation period.
Addressing the Practical Issue
28. Accordingly, employees and potential hires must remain mindful of the statutory timelines and take timely steps to preserve their rights, even while engaging in good-faith negotiations with their employers.
VIII: Safeguard Against Duplicative, Frivolous Or Vexatious Claims
29. In line with its objectives, the Bill includes safeguards to prevent individuals from pursuing duplicate or overlapping claims for the same alleged discriminatory act.
30. An employee is barred from bringing a discrimination claim if they have already initiated proceedings in another forum on the same ground.
31. These measures ensure that parties do not litigate the same dispute multiple times, thereby ensuring procedural fairness, consistency, and efficient resolution of workplace discrimination claims.
32. Further, the MOM has stated that there are systemic safeguards to deter frivolous and vexatious claims.[5] The ECT and the High Court may strike out frivolous or vexatious claims. Costs may be awarded against claimants with frivolous or vexatious claims. Individuals who make such claims can be investigated by the Police for abusing the Court’s process.
IX: Implications For Employers
33. The Act and the Bill encourage a fair workplace. Employers have time to facilitate such an environment. These measures include:
a. First, employers should review and update all employment policies. This can include updating recruitment guidelines, ensuring an objective assessment of promotion opportunities, and reviewing retrenchment policies to ensure decisions are justifiable and consistent.
b. Second, employers should set up regular compliance audits to identify issues early.
c. Third, employers are encouraged to keep records of reasons for all employment processes: hiring, promotion, and termination.
d. Fourth, train HR teams, managers, and supervisors. Training is essential to prevent discriminatory decisions that may arise from inconsistent or poorly informed practices.
X: Implications For Individuals
34. For employees and potential hires, the Bill introduces new protections and strict procedures that must be understood carefully.
35. First, individuals must understand the procedural hurdles to cross before they can avail themselves of remedies under this statutory cause of action.
36. Second, employees and prospective employees must be vigilant about limitation periods. Even in the course of good-faith dialogue with an employer, they must ensure that a mediation request is filed on time.
XI: Conclusion
37. In sum, the Bill introduces a structured and balanced framework for addressing workplace discrimination.
38. While it creates new avenues for individuals to seek recourse, it also emphasises early resolution and responsible use of the process.
39. As the Bill is likely to come into force at the end of 2027, both employers and workers will benefit from understanding these changes and preparing for them in good time.
Endnotes
[1] S. 27, Workplace Fairness Act 2025.
[3] S. 5 read with s. 7, Workplace Fairness Act 2025.
[4] S. 27, Workplace Fairness Act 2025.
This article was written with the assistance of Kevion Lee, whose contribution is greatly appreciated.
This article does not constitute legal advice. If you require advice, do not hesitate to contact:
Ronald JJ Wong
Deputy Managing Director
